Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Not true, because "safe / dangerous level of consumption" is an inequality not an equality. To take Darat's example a little further, if study 1 finds that 8 units a week is dangerous and study 2 finds that 9 units a week is dangerous, these are neither contradicted by each other nor by study 3 which finds that 7 units a week is dangerous. Or, to take yours, if study 1 finds that 2 units per week is a safe level of consumption, then it is not contradicted by study 2 finding that 1 unit per week is a safe level of consumption. And that's before even considering the fact that real studies include error bars, which are rarely reported because that would require the reporter and the reader to think.

Dave

This.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

There are not equal numbers of studies saying that alcohol causes and cures cirrhosis of the liver are there?

There are not equal numbers of studies that say that alcohol is a neuro-toxin that also say alcohol is a nootropic, are there?

There are not going to be equal numbers of studies saying that alcohol makes someone a worse driver due to slower reaction speeds as say that they make people better drivers are there?

In fact, your claim is even stronger than that. You are saying that if there is even one study showing alcohol is a neurotoxin then all other studies contradict it!

Wow!

Well said.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Not true, because "safe / dangerous level of consumption" is an inequality not an equality. To take Darat's example a little further, if study 1 finds that 8 units a week is dangerous and study 2 finds that 9 units a week is dangerous, these are neither contradicted by each other nor by study 3 which finds that 7 units a week is dangerous. Or, to take yours, if study 1 finds that 2 units per week is a safe level of consumption, then it is not contradicted by study 2 finding that 1 unit per week is a safe level of consumption. And that's before even considering the fact that real studies include error bars, which are rarely reported because that would require the reporter and the reader to think.

Dave

Thank you.

I remember when I drank a couple of drinks every day for years.

I'd come up with all sorts of wild excuses to justify that as "moderate drinking". I felt "fine" but had deep-down concerns I was harming myself and wouldn't admit them to anyone.

Never imagined I'd feel so much healthier, sleep so much better, and be so much more creative and productive since quitting.

I thought so too, at first, but then I considered that men and women are different in this respect.

Quote:

What does moderate drinking mean?
According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, moderate alcohol consumption is defined as having up to 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men. This definition refers to the amount consumed on any single day and is not intended as an average over several days. However, the Dietary Guidelines do not recommend that people who do not drink alcohol start drinking for any reason.Alcohol and Public Health: Frequently Asked Questions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

__________________"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

The site has a calculator that converts your drinks of alcohol to standard units, and also compares you to the rest of the population.

Woah, indeed, I was drinking a lot!

It says my one bottle of wine over the weekend is OK, but more than 77% of women in the UK drink. I find the latter surprising.

__________________"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

In April a Lancet paper on risk thresholds for alcohol consumption led to worldwide media attention with headlines such as “One extra glass of wine will shorten your life by 30 minutes”. However, more critical and in-depth scrutiny of the research reveals the inaccuracy of these messages, as stated by Professor Arne Astrup from University of Copenhagen, and Dr. Simona Costanzo and Professor Giovanni de Gaetano from Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, IRCCS NEUROMED, Italy, in a correspondence published in the Lancet this week.Professor Astrup and colleagues pinpointed a number of analytical errors with weighty implications for the conclusions.Light to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lowered mortality compared to not drinking alcohol at all (Copenhagen University, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Nov. 16, 2018)

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

In April a Lancet paper on risk thresholds for alcohol consumption led to worldwide media attention with headlines such as “One extra glass of wine will shorten your life by 30 minutes”. However, more critical and in-depth scrutiny of the research reveals the inaccuracy of these messages, as stated by Professor Arne Astrup from University of Copenhagen, and Dr. Simona Costanzo and Professor Giovanni de Gaetano from Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, IRCCS NEUROMED, Italy, in a correspondence published in the Lancet this week.
Professor Astrup and colleagues pinpointed a number of analytical errors with weighty implications for the conclusions.
Light to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lowered mortality compared to not drinking alcohol at all (Copenhagen University, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Nov. 16, 2018)

In the first study that said any amount increases mortality, non-drinkers were omitted. Bad study.

However in this one which says moderate amounts decrease mortality, ex-drinkers were omitted. Not sure that's any better.

It's not a new study. It's the same one, but with different conclusions. 'In this one,' they just included the never-drinkers:

Quote:

Professor Arne Astrup, MD, DMSc, from the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports at the University of Copenhagen: “We were highly surprised that non-drinkers were eliminated from the analysis, without valid scientific justification.” For almost a century, the scientific community has been aware of the J-shaped curve between alcohol consumption and mortality. Moderate drinkers seem to live longer than abstainers and heavy drinkers, mainly due to lower mortality from cardiovascular diseases.

Quote:

Professor De Gaetano: “There is actually very little novelty in this study. Like many other studies this study suggests that the mortality curve bends at around one to two drinks per day. Hence these findings do not justify the conclusion in the Lancet publication that the thresholds for safer alcohol use should be lowered.”

Where would you place non-drinking ex-drinkers? They may have stopped drinking for all kinds of reasons, damaged livers, for instance, or other health problems, which is probably the reason why the "hazard ratio" of ex-drinkers (1.42) is higher than that of never-drinkers (1.2).

Quote:

Excluding the non-drinkers means the lowest risk is no longer found in those consuming 250–350 g of alcohol per week, but instead is found in those consuming up to 50 g of alcohol per week.

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Got to love the science of data mining! It goes so well with selection bias!

I remember one study about diabetics and fruit consumption. Seems women whi eat the most fruit have a 2% lower death rate. Men who ate the most had a 1% higher death rate. Headlines were "Eating more fruit is good!" rather than telling men to hold off. They just ignored the most obvious dichotomy.

With my own ointerest in thei thread based on my diabetes, the results I see are "moderate drinking is the best thing a diabetic can do. Better than Statins ate preventing CVD." And moderate for me at 250-300 pounds is more than two servings.

__________________Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

I doubt very much that, on my deathbed, my last words are going to be "Dammit, I could have lived 30 more minutes if I hadn't had that last glass of wine!"

__________________"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady
"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky
"Real name? Xavier Jorge Gladdius Horatio McShrimp. No wonder he goes by shemp." - wasapi
"...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will

I doubt very much my last words will be coherent, as they are likely to be slurred while staggering drunk into traffic

I'll drink to that!

__________________"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady
"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky
"Real name? Xavier Jorge Gladdius Horatio McShrimp. No wonder he goes by shemp." - wasapi
"...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will

I doubt very much my last words will be coherent, as they are likely to be slurred while staggering drunk into traffic

I'm not sure how the casualties of never-drinkers caused by drunk drivers affect the "hazard ratio" ...

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Because it isn't necessarily about living or dying? What if (to use just one example) such a brilliant lifestyle choice causes a stroke, leaving them paralyzed to the point where they can't even dress themselves or go to the bathroom themselves (etc etc)...and oops they didn't count on living into their 90s, meaning a REAL long period of time for such a miserable, horrific existence....and that's only if they can afford decent care. Can't? It gets worse.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, after all this is the internet, but an (alleged) nurse making such a statement is more than a little irresponsible, if not outright nauseating. Is this the advice you give to elderly relatives?

I've seen numerous studies; this is the first that refuted 2 or less being not harmful at least, beneficial at best. I'd say the jury is still out, at least.

Some say even 3 or 4 a night presents no adverse risk. Not surprisingly these are European studies

The first graph I saw with the U-shaped curve showed 2-3 as optimum, with 6 needed to bring the risk ratio back to par. That study was done in San Diego county, Rancho Bernardo IIRC.

On the subject of U or J shaped curves, I wonder if what they hint at is TWO actions, one get better with the experimental treatment, the other gets worse. The U shape is merely the overlaying of the two graphs. Think 'scatter plot'. Some day we may learn what those two phenomenon are. Depending which one a particular subject has, maybe half of us can guzzle beer like a Frat Boy to health advantage. But the rest will be poisoned by a single shot.

eta, after a few minutes of thinking: We can data mine too! We already know that they did divided out the diabetics, who showed the most benefit of drinking. How much can a diabetic drink before reaching par? No limit perhaps? And which group suffered the most ill effects? I think drunk driving was involved?

__________________Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Stats are stats. What works for some does not work for all. Some anatomies can’t handle what other anatomies can.

Number of drinks per day - how bunched up were they? 4-6 drinks in a few hours or over the course of 24 hours? How was this accurately measured?

There is use, abuse, and addiction.

Bottom line - if it’s causing you a problem, then it’s a problem.

Getting a man on the moon was a problem. A problem is a challenge to overcome. Shouldn't we all seek to meet challenges, and increase their number and complexity so as to keep our edge, lest we atrophy? You may shrink from the gauntlet dropped, sir, but not I. I, for one, dedicate my decomposing liver to the betterment and advancement of mankind.

__________________"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Some say even 3 or 4 a night presents no adverse risk. Not surprisingly these are European studies

If you look at the graph, you'll notice that the consumption of alcohol is calculated in grams: "Baseline alcohol consumption (g/week)."

Quote:

Taking out the non-drinkers as a reference group is the only novelty in this study compared with existing scientific literature,2 and causes the complete elimination of the left rising arm of the J curve (as shown in the figure and in the Article's appendix, p 31).Rish thresholds for alcohol consumption (The Lancet, Nov. 17, 2018)

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

It always seems to me that people who want to use a recreational drug will keep searching and searching for any kind of "benefit" they can find. It's akin to research into the "benefits" of male genital mutilation, often said to be a procedure looking for a benefit.

If you want to use a recreational drug just use it, stop trying to convince other folk that they should also be using it!

Aye, I found out that my alcoholic life actually improved when I stopped wanting more fellow drunks around. Turns out that being the only drunk at the office party works just as well, and gets one more attention too

It always seems to me that people who want to use a recreational drug will keep searching and searching for any kind of "benefit" they can find. It's akin to research into the "benefits" of male genital mutilation, often said to be a procedure looking for a benefit.

If you want to use a recreational drug just use it, stop trying to convince other folk that they should also be using it!

My, what an open minded skeptic you turn out to be. Especially when presented with studies that show a benefit.

__________________Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

It always seems to me that people who want to use a recreational drug will keep searching and searching for any kind of "benefit" they can find. It's akin to research into the "benefits" of male genital mutilation, often said to be a procedure looking for a benefit.

If you want to use a recreational drug just use it, stop trying to convince other folk that they should also be using it!

The reverse is also true. Recreational drugs are very popular to demonize. People who don't use them justify their non-use by the same process of latching onto any perceived "harm," with similarly sketchy results. I mentioned earlier that although the OP's study doesn't show moderate alcohol use being beneficial, it also doesn't show it being particularly harmful, either, but I don't see a rush of people trying to point that out.

I'll give the moral high ground point to the alkies in this case, because the historical next step for teetotalers is to argue it justifies everyone else's non-use as well.

It always seems to me that people who want to use a recreational drug will keep searching and searching for any kind of "benefit" they can find. It's akin to research into the "benefits" of male genital mutilation, often said to be a procedure looking for a benefit.

If you want to use a recreational drug just use it, stop trying to convince other folk that they should also be using it!

Putting aside the social comment, however, there is a very specific concern in the use of statistics in the original study; it appears that the methodology is to consider only the data from people whose alcohol consumption is non-zero, and then to extrapolate these results to arbitrarily low consumption levels. I hadn't appreciated this from reading it, but the authors' response confirms that this was a reasonable characterisation of their approach. What they haven't clearly explained is why the health outcomes for people who have never drunk alcohol at all are significantly worse than the outcomes from extrapolating low volume drinkers to zero consumption. There appears to be an implication that non-drinkers are somehow qualititively different for reasons that may not be properly controlled in the surveys, but I find this a bit dubious, because it seems to draw a false distinction between someone who doesn't drink and someone who drinks but whose consumption is zero. What the data seems to show is that, by reducing one's drinking below a certain threshold, one may have better probability of good health than someone who has never drunk at all; and that doesn't, to me, seem consistent with the assertion that there is no minimum level below which drinking alcohol does not interfere with health.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

I average out the last few years. At one time I was having a beer at bedtime to help me get to sleep, but I've got the last of those in the fridge for the last six months; I literally haven't had a drink in that whole time. Still, I put myself down for a drink, sometimes more than one, once a month.

It still came back and said that 23% of the adult male population drinks less than me.

Are there that many tea-totalers in the UK? 'Cuz that's the lowest answer (and still claim a tick mark as a "drinker") you can give.

__________________Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

The google translation of the title is weird: Arne Astrup: Should you be a hangover, or are a couple of glasses of beer or wine a week healthy?

It should have been: Should you become a tee-totaler, or are a couple of ...

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

My translation: "You can enjoy a glass of beer or wine even if you need to lose weight or have diabetes type two. The quantity is what’s important."

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

I'm reminded of a study about diabetics and eating fruit. Males who ate the most fruit had a 2% higher death rate. Females, 3% lower. Headlines: "Diabetics should Eat more fruit!!!".

However, according to a new Harvard study, a glass of orange juice a day seems to be a good idea if you want to avoid Alzheimer's:

Quote:

Researchers tracked almost 28,000 men for two decades to examine how their fruit and vegetable consumption affected their brain power.
They found men, who drank a small glass of orange juice, were 47 per cent less likely to have difficulty remembering, following instructions or navigating familiar areas.
(...)
'The protective role of regular consumption of fruit juice was mainly observed among the oldest men,' Ms Yuan said.Drinking orange juice could slash your risk of dementia by 50 per cent as it protects the brain, study finds (Daily Mail, Dec. 7, 2018)

I know, The Daily Mail, but I've seen references to the study in more reliable papers, but not in English.

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.